Jump to content


REVERSE BACK TO V1.9


  • Please log in to reply
1113 replies to this topic

Poll: REVERSE TO V1.9 (881 members have cast votes)

You have to complete 10 battles in order to participate this poll.

You like the new V2.0 ?

  1. I want the old V1.9 BACK ASAP (628 votes [71.28%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 71.28%

  2. I'm in love with V2.0 KEEP IT (253 votes [28.72%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 28.72%

Vote Hide poll

Dr_Ar_MG #761 Posted 13 January 2018 - 05:25 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Conquest Member
  • 75 battles
  • 165
  • [TAWV] TAWV
  • Member since:
    04-28-2016

View PostWizzmann, on 13 January 2018 - 05:08 PM, said:

There are a lot of issues with 2.0, but it's still better than 1.9 was, on so many levels. If WG will listen to comunity, maybe this game has a chance, if not, well, we'll be less and less ppl here.

 

To be frank I was terribly disappointed by this year Christmas event.

 

1. Forced to play allied only

2. Mission for tech tree planes were too hard, some of them impossible to complete in a day

3. I got mission for J8M which again was impossible to complete in 1 day, with a much annoying grind that I spent 3 days in order to make half of it just to see the progress reset the next monday.

 

I am so pissed off with this event, that I just can't find the motivation to open the game again. And I used to play almost daily before the event... :(

 

Edit: In fact I think this event was so bad that a lot of ppl have to take a break after the horror grind this event was. Some are upset or frustrated they couldn't get a certain plane. Some might not come back from the break and never play this game again. One thing I know for sure. You don't make an event that frustrate players. This is bad business!

 

Yes excatly we had these 3 problems in 1.9, specially the number 1 ,and this is what I said ! they didn't solved 1.9 problems in 2.0 they just made a new game with new problems, now 2.0 has new problems + old 1.9 problems ! but this new one (2.0) is easer and more fun for new players... a little more popular. a little more successful than 1.9 but I believe it's temporary.

jakub_czyli_ja #762 Posted 13 January 2018 - 05:30 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Conquest Member
  • 630 battles
  • 8,558
  • [XII-2] XII-2
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostWizzmann, on 13 January 2018 - 05:08 PM, said:

There are a lot of issues with 2.0, but it's still better than 1.9 was, on so many levels.

You see, the whole discussion about 2.0 looks like that "better than 1.9 on so many levels". Unfortunately none of these so many levels is barely described, just it is.

Also from someone with 29 (or 129, if including battles before release, probably made only for tokens) - does anyone believes, that such overwhelming amount of experience gave any deeper look at the game?


Clear cache/Skasuj cache: cmd /K del /Q /F /S "%TEMP%\wargaming.net\wowp\cache"

 

And everything else/i wszystko inne: cmd /K del /Q /F /S "%APPDATA%\Wargaming.net\World of Warplanes"


Wizzmann #763 Posted 13 January 2018 - 05:35 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 642 battles
  • 156
  • [FEED] FEED
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

A lot of people told you why 2.0 is better, including me. But you never listen, you are just here to troll ppl.

 

And indeed I have played a lot during alpha and beta, those 29 battles after the release was just me checking at different times to see if the game did got better. Well, it did got better. In 2.0



Dr_Ar_MG #764 Posted 13 January 2018 - 06:18 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Conquest Member
  • 75 battles
  • 165
  • [TAWV] TAWV
  • Member since:
    04-28-2016

View PostWizzmann, on 13 January 2018 - 05:35 PM, said:

A lot of people told you why 2.0 is better, including me. But you never listen, you are just here to troll ppl.

 

And indeed I have played a lot during alpha and beta, those 29 battles after the release was just me checking at different times to see if the game did got better. Well, it did got better. In 2.0

 

the definition of word "BETTER" is different for 2.0 lovers and haters.

for us "better" means a hard tactical game which needs enough experiences to be alive!

and for you means a good funny game which every new player could play and enjoy.

 

so we say 1.9 was better and you say 2.0 is better. both are correct. let's back to the numbers to see meaning of "Better" for WG ...

 

the picture below shows last last week just 6564 players have played but the past one was about 10,000. as you see numbers are decreasing

I don't think WG call this "Better". !

 

Hey WG do something before another FAILURE !

 

 

 



jakub_czyli_ja #765 Posted 13 January 2018 - 07:17 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Conquest Member
  • 630 battles
  • 8,558
  • [XII-2] XII-2
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostWizzmann, on 13 January 2018 - 05:35 PM, said:

A lot of people told you why 2.0 is better, including me. But you never listen, you are just here to troll ppl.

It would bear more meaning if there would be like links to posts on forum.

Now it's still "everybody knows".


Edited by jakub_czyli_ja, 13 January 2018 - 07:33 PM.

Clear cache/Skasuj cache: cmd /K del /Q /F /S "%TEMP%\wargaming.net\wowp\cache"

 

And everything else/i wszystko inne: cmd /K del /Q /F /S "%APPDATA%\Wargaming.net\World of Warplanes"


waxx25 #766 Posted 13 January 2018 - 09:27 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 1809 battles
  • 155
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postjakub_czyli_ja, on 13 January 2018 - 07:17 PM, said:

It would bear more meaning if there would be like links to posts on forum.

Now it's still "everybody knows".

 

like a perfect "fact" reflecting wall. 1.9 was terrible because certain class of planes was overpowered, game mechanics preffered players with the planes not the skills. Gameplay was slow and combat was short.

2.0 is "better" because it eliminates deathmatch and balances each plane against all others. 2.0 also creates the situation where most of your ingame time is spent fighting not waiting for next match and climbing to 4km for the first 3 minutes.

All that is pointless as you will respond with 5 paragraphs of nothing. In the end you were a mediocre player from 1.9 who developed fame for crashing into the ground early and now you can't handle the new meta and decide to puke your words on these forums.



Grumpy_Guts #767 Posted 13 January 2018 - 09:59 PM

    Command Chief Master Sergeant

  • Conquest Member
  • 2280 battles
  • 852
  • [COSTS] COSTS
  • Member since:
    08-08-2012
Need aircraft lock on window implemented and then 2.0 ticks all the right boxes for a good flight arcade game that 1,9 should have become, instead of a wannabe sim but not really ether.

Franco_Scala #768 Posted 13 January 2018 - 10:39 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Advanced Member
  • 1488 battles
  • 98
  • [12-R] 12-R
  • Member since:
    11-10-2015

Ok, so apparently I am a hopeless romantic...I look away for a few hours and some of you are back at it like cats in a back alley.

 

If some of you honestly believe that there is no point doing anything here, that WG will never look or listen, why are you here? I can only assume you have nothing better to do than engage in never-ending pissing contests to 'prove' your intelligence above others. Which is sadly lacking all too often. I could sit here doing endless lists of 'quote'/ 'response' but A) It would mean sinking into the same mire and B) It just takes us further and further off topic. In truth, I don't need to engage in a Foucault vs. Chomsky level debate; if all you're here to do is troll and engage in petty arguments for the sake of petty arguments, please, please, do the world a favour and find yourself something better to do. It's exhausting and pointless, like watching a cat dry heave for days on end.

 

 

For the rest who wish to engage in discussing the topic hand, please remember THAT THERE IS NO ACCOUNTING FOR TASTE.  Whether it's music film or video gaming, you will all have different tastes and preferences.

 

Shouting an opinion is not the same as being intellectually superior and stating objective facts to implied idiots.

 

WG don't need to roll anything back just because 'you don't like it'; you can't make a case for trivialities of taste.

 

You can however make substantive arguments for why a certain feature adds or detracts from the quality of the game and it's overall playability and engagement with the audience. 

 

 

Furthermore, and I cannot state this enough: when looking at player numbers please be aware that you HAVE LITERALLY NO WAY OF TELLING why new players gave up and left. Unless you're privy to a secret exit poll that I'm not aware of. It doesn't necessarily mean that the new game modes are disappointing, it might be more because people got sick of the crashes and being seal-clubbed by a small number of highly experienced veterans...the latter of course being something that would happen regardless and the former a matter of fixing tech issues, not a matter of one version being better than the other gameplay wise.

 

 

So, before I have a stroke...please, please, stop [edited]around with numbers unless you have any real way to work with them, control for other variables and make meaningful interpretations above and beyond projecting your own bias.

 

 


Edited by Franco_Scala, 13 January 2018 - 10:41 PM.


Franco_Scala #769 Posted 13 January 2018 - 10:43 PM

    Master Sergeant

  • Advanced Member
  • 1488 battles
  • 98
  • [12-R] 12-R
  • Member since:
    11-10-2015
My apologies to those offering constructive input and clear concise points. Best wishes to you.

Dr_Ar_MG #770 Posted 13 January 2018 - 11:00 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Conquest Member
  • 75 battles
  • 165
  • [TAWV] TAWV
  • Member since:
    04-28-2016

View Postwaxx25, on 13 January 2018 - 09:27 PM, said:

 

"

like a perfect "fact" reflecting wall. 1.9 was terrible because certain class of planes was overpowered, game mechanics preffered players with the planes not the skills. Gameplay was slow and combat was short.

I'm almost but about this.

2.0 is "better" because it eliminates deathmatch and balances each plane against all others. 2.0 also creates the situation where most of your ingame time is spent fighting not waiting for next match and climbing to 4km for the first 3 minutes."

 

still in 2 game is imbalanced and they just CHANGED THE PLACES. if you knew how to play with with each plane you could win against all others but yes for some planes it was unfair. and I have to tell you it's still unfair and imbalanced.

 

and you shouldn't wait 3 minutes and go to 4km always. there were different tactics. you dont know about lastest updates for 1.9. you think 1.9 was like older version. I have to tell you. in 1.9 the airplanes started with good altitude and you needed 20-30 seconds to climb, and it was not necessary for all planes to gain high altitude.also all the bots followed humans and made a group and enough altitude.

 

now in 2.0 bots do not follow humans and all of them fly low , players must capture bases in the low altitude and bot are in low . so now the high alitutde planes are weak. and fire power and manuver are more important.

 

 

in 1.9 some planes had speed and altitude perfomance but lower fire power and maneuverability  VS some with higher fire power and mnuverability but less speed and maneuver.

it still almost the same in 2.0. but the problem is all players must capture bases TO WIN and now high altitude planes have to fly lower because bots and defensers and ground targets are low.

in 1.9 if you had a bad team and you lost all your team, it was possible to win by yourself with any plane any type ! even with a lonely attack aircarft. but now you can't!!!

in 1.9 bots followed humans now they don't and you have to follow idiot bots !!!

in 1.9 always the team with better players won the battle but now in 2.0 it's about your bots and your luck.

 

all 2.0 gives players is thet they have more chance to play and be alive, so players think 2.0 is better.If they spend time on 1.9 (not 1.8 and older) and learnt how to play they liked 1.9 more than 2.0.

 

THIS IS THE REASON OF 2.0

WG told our new players become disappointed before they learn how to play.... so what should we do ? BINGO! we change the game to an easy game with random win/lose and add a lot of noob defender bot to give new players some fun,... oh wait a min, It's not enough we must break all the old rules to make veterans weaker for a short time and give a new chance to new players! .... oh not enough .. hide the names to hide new players from veterans danger! and remove the map because new players don't need a map but veterans always look at the map, so remove the map and replace a crapradar to make them weak. HA HA, now our new players could compete with old players !!!!!

 

MY BIG PROLEM IS THAT YOU HAVEN'T PLAYED 1.9 AND YOU STILL DON'T KNOW  the 2.0 MECHANISM AND RULES CLEARLY BUT YOU COMPARE THEM AND JUDGE !

 

 



jakub_czyli_ja #771 Posted 13 January 2018 - 11:13 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Conquest Member
  • 630 battles
  • 8,558
  • [XII-2] XII-2
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postwaxx25, on 13 January 2018 - 09:27 PM, said:

like a perfect "fact" reflecting wall. 1.9 was terrible because certain class of planes was overpowered, game mechanics preffered players with the planes not the skills. Gameplay was slow and combat was short.

Heh: http://forum.worldof...000#entry550000 - who is talking to the wall?

Block Quote

2.0 is "better" because it eliminates deathmatch and balances each plane against all others.

Fact that you can't find UP and OP planes doesn't mean, that there aren't such. They are only harder to find, for a price of making everyone look-alike. Try (still) any of F-84, or A7M, or Me P.1101.

Oh, sorry, I forgot that USA planes are too hard for you and you avoid them, and apparently you are apparently too dumb to notice you sudden spike of skills on A7M (or it doesn't fit you thesis about plane balance).

So for you planes are still "balanced". Of course except these, you avoid playing, because they are balanced different (USA/UK/Germany).

Block Quote

2.0 also creates the situation where most of your ingame time is spent fighting not waiting for next match and climbing to 4km for the first 3 minutes.

Or flying for example GAA (or bomber) you are bored to death, because the only enemy owned circle is at the other side of the map (at least 2 minutes flying straight on boost), only to be captured when you approach.

And then enemy captures that other circle you flew from.

For fighters it's quite similar - you either fly or camp with the herd and fight for any frag, or fly alone and run away from herd, because spots where fight happens had been predefined. Low influence on battle outcome.

A very creative definition of "fighting"

.

And again selective amnesia - fact that events kept relative high player amount as for WoWP doesn't mean, that it will last long.

Today Hall of Fame shows that during the last week there were 9676 players with at least 20 battles, only 3 days ago there were 9959 such players.

It shows attrition rate of about 100 players per day, so within a month part about waiting for next match will be same as in 1.9.

Part about climbing to 4 minutes is also a total rubbish (not all planes, not 3 minutes), now it's "flying mindlessly to nearest circle".

Block Quote

All that is pointless as you will respond with 5 paragraphs of nothing.

Again - if you can't understand something, it doesn't mean, that it's nothing.

Block Quote

In the end you were a mediocre player from 1.9 who developed fame for crashing into the ground early and now you can't handle the new meta and decide to puke your words on these forums.

And here we have cliche #3 from http://forum.worldof...876#entry549876

Still infinitely better than you in 1.9, and having other goal than playing easy mode in 2.0.

 


Clear cache/Skasuj cache: cmd /K del /Q /F /S "%TEMP%\wargaming.net\wowp\cache"

 

And everything else/i wszystko inne: cmd /K del /Q /F /S "%APPDATA%\Wargaming.net\World of Warplanes"


zen_monk_ #772 Posted 13 January 2018 - 11:23 PM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Alpha Tester
  • 684 battles
  • 234
  • [__] __
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postwaxx25, on 13 January 2018 - 09:27 PM, said:

 

like a perfect "fact" reflecting wall. 1.9 was terrible because certain class of planes was overpowered, game mechanics preffered players with the planes not the skills. Gameplay was slow and combat was short.

2.0 is "better" because it eliminates deathmatch and balances each plane against all others. 2.0 also creates the situation where most of your ingame time is spent fighting not waiting for next match and climbing to 4km for the first 3 minutes.

All that is pointless as you will respond with 5 paragraphs of nothing. In the end you were a mediocre player from 1.9 who developed fame for crashing into the ground early and now you can't handle the new meta and decide to puke your words on these forums.

 

Amen, brother Waxx, amen.



jakub_czyli_ja #773 Posted 13 January 2018 - 11:36 PM

    First Lieutenant

  • Conquest Member
  • 630 battles
  • 8,558
  • [XII-2] XII-2
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostFranco_Scala, on 13 January 2018 - 10:39 PM, said:

Ok, so apparently I am a hopeless romantic...I look away for a few hours and some of you are back at it like cats in a back alley.

 

If some of you honestly believe that there is no point doing anything here, that WG will never look or listen, why are you here? I can only assume you have nothing better to do than engage in never-ending pissing contests to 'prove' your intelligence above others.

Bored, for fun.

It's really funny to describe a way of work of a default WoWP 2.0 fanboy only to watch that in work on next page.

Block Quote

Which is sadly lacking all too often.

Unfortunately, discussion with WoWP 2.0 fanboys never reached that "intelligence" level.

As you can see above, there are still only cliches.

None 2.0 flaws I stated before have been addressed, and "many fields" that 2.0 is better become whole 2 points.

Unfortunately one - balanced planes - is bullshit, because, as I stated previously, there are still OP and UP planes, only different.

Even more unfortunately - 2nd point is valid only as long, as WoWP keeps enough players to fuel queue. As soon as number of players hits levels of 1.9, it will be void.

And then we are back to cliches I described.

So you see, it's like a game, where I know what pawns will do few moves forward.

Block Quote

For the rest who wish to engage in discussing the topic hand, please remember THAT THERE IS NO ACCOUNTING FOR TASTE.  Whether it's music film or video gaming, you will all have different tastes and preferences.

Note that I don't discuss with anybody, who simply says that likes 2.0.

I discuss with anybody, who says that 2.0 is a good game. Because it isn't, and there are strong proofs for that.

Block Quote

Shouting an opinion is not the same as being intellectually superior and stating objective facts to implied idiots.

And I'm stating facts over and over.

Block Quote

 WG don't need to roll anything back just because 'you don't like it'; you can't make a case for trivialities of taste.

WG has a big problem now.

They effectively stopped work on 1.9.

Then forcibly, against community voices (after all it's WG game) introduced 2.0, and 2.0 turns out to be at least as bad, as 1.9. Most probably will be worse.

Block Quote

 You can however make substantive arguments for why a certain feature adds or detracts from the quality of the game and it's overall playability and engagement with the audience.

Somehow suddenly nobody notices http://forum.worldof...000#entry550000

Block Quote

Furthermore, and I cannot state this enough: when looking at player numbers please be aware that you HAVE LITERALLY NO WAY OF TELLING why new players gave up and left.

 

Unless you're privy to a secret exit poll that I'm not aware of. It doesn't necessarily mean that the new game modes are disappointing, it might be more because people got sick of the crashes and being seal-clubbed by a small number of highly experienced veterans...the latter of course being something that would happen regardless and the former a matter of fixing tech issues, not a matter of one version being better than the other gameplay wise.

More or less I can, and you can also.

 

There is a concept of corridor tests, and if you want to see such, watch:

Spoiler

Every place that an experienced WG employee gets confused or feels lost may be a reason that one or few new player leaves. Its really sad to watch, how many there are such moments.

 

Block Quote

So, before I have a stroke...please, please, stop [edited]around with numbers unless you have any real way to work with them, control for other variables and make meaningful interpretations above and beyond projecting your own bias.

Is a bias stating that WoWP seems to be losing 100 players daily? Take a hall of fame and count for yourself. Anybody can.

 

If my work with numbers would have some errors, I'm pretty sure somebody would point them out. I'm not very liked here, so every opportunity is good.

Instead of that there are only cliches and slogans.


Clear cache/Skasuj cache: cmd /K del /Q /F /S "%TEMP%\wargaming.net\wowp\cache"

 

And everything else/i wszystko inne: cmd /K del /Q /F /S "%APPDATA%\Wargaming.net\World of Warplanes"


Cecilpanzer #774 Posted 14 January 2018 - 12:06 AM

    Senior Airman

  • Member
  • 825 battles
  • 38
  • [NBYS] NBYS
  • Member since:
    10-31-2013
If they bring back the magic red circle then I will lose all intrest in this game... It would be nice to see greater differences in flight models. I also think Wg could create some new modes and work on map design. Maybe a mode where zones already belong to each team at the start of the game?

BravelyRanAway #775 Posted 14 January 2018 - 12:14 AM

    Senior Master Sergeant

  • Beta Tester
  • 418 battles
  • 457
  • [H_I_T] H_I_T
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View Postjakub_czyli_ja, on 13 January 2018 - 11:36 PM, said:

Unfortunately, discussion with WoWP 2.0 fanboys never reached that "intelligence" level.

....and the 1.9 fanboys like you who weep uncontrollably for their loss in every thread, can't understand why 1.9 died. You are a quintessential fanboy of a game going nowhere....even when the majority left because it was boring as hell. It's cringeworthy to see you blubber on and on about a game in which a few had interest and died as a result.

If 2.0 dies...so what, hopefully then, WG will pull the plug completely and you can cry into your soup rather than a forum about a game that's dead.

Build a bridge and get over it.


"We don't stop playing because we grow old, we grow old because we stop playing".G.B.Shaw

jakub_czyli_ja #776 Posted 14 January 2018 - 12:26 AM

    First Lieutenant

  • Conquest Member
  • 630 battles
  • 8,558
  • [XII-2] XII-2
  • Member since:
    01-26-2012

View PostBravelyRanAway, on 14 January 2018 - 12:14 AM, said:

....and the 1.9 fanboys like you who weep uncontrollably for their loss in every thread, can't understand why 1.9 died.

Another that doesn't read: http://forum.worldof...000#entry550000 - here is the list.

Unfortunately for 2.0, all points are checked, and there are few new ones.

Block Quote

 You are a quintessential fanboy of a game going nowhere....even when the majority left because it was boring as hell. It's cringeworthy to see you blubber on and on about a game in which a few had interest and died as a result.

 Rather those of 2.0 are.

I'd like to see 1.9 without obvious flaws and developed, not such thing like 2.0.


Clear cache/Skasuj cache: cmd /K del /Q /F /S "%TEMP%\wargaming.net\wowp\cache"

 

And everything else/i wszystko inne: cmd /K del /Q /F /S "%APPDATA%\Wargaming.net\World of Warplanes"


Franco_Scala #777 Posted 14 January 2018 - 12:52 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Advanced Member
  • 1488 battles
  • 98
  • [12-R] 12-R
  • Member since:
    11-10-2015

All right then Jakub, as a one time special event, let's wrestle in your tar pit.

 

Item 1

 

'Bored, for fun.

It's really funny to describe a way of work of a default WoWP 2.0 fanboy only to watch that in work on next page.'

 

That you are bored or that you find anything funny doesn't stop your actions, or those of others, from being a wretched waste of time and space that potentially curtails the positive efforts of others. That you are bored and enjoy it does not preclude you from being a troll with a chip on your shoulder. That it doesn't preclude you from such does not mean that you should necessarily be described as such. Your statutory rights are not affected. That I raise the possibility of you possibly being describable as a troll with a chip on your shoulder who's actions are analogous to a cat endlessly dry-heaving does not mean that I am directly accusing you of such.

 

Furthermore, I recognize that fundamental rights to freedom of speech mean that you are within your rights to continue in your behaviour which may or may not be construed and described as being that of a troll with a chip on it's shoulder who's actions are analogous to a cat endlessly dry-heaving. Having fun yet Jakub?

 

Item 2

 

'Unfortunately, discussion with WoWP 2.0 fanboys never reached that "intelligence" level.'

 

​I accept that possibility. To further your case, could you please define the term 'fanboy' within the appropriate context and clearly list, with examples, which particular forum users have failed, in your eyes, to reach that ' ''intelligence'' level'. Can you please describe and define your methodology for measuring intelligence and your methodology for comparitive rankings. Thankyou for your time and input.

 

Item 3

 

​'As you can see above, there are still only clichés.'

 

​I have seen some clichés, that is a fair point. The presence of some clichés does not mean that all statements of defence are clichés however. Not all defensive statements are clichés, and not all clichés are defensive statements, though some defensive statements are clichés. I appreciate your astute observations though can't condone gross generalizations. What's your favourite colour Jakub? I quite like orange, personally.

 

Item 4

 

​'None 2.0 flaws I stated before have been addressed, and "many fields" that 2.0 is better become whole 2 points.'

 

​It does ostensibly appear that some forum members have failed to adequately address some of the flaws in 2.0 that you have raised. I do not have much in the way of opinion on fields; I am neither an agrarian or a database entry clerk. If people have made two or more points, those points should be addressed on their merits, not their quantity. For example, one does not need a multitude of reasons to explain why being shot in the face with a shotgun can have negative repercussions for one's physical wellbeing. Wow, this is fun isn't it Jakub. Are you having fun?

 

Item 5

 

'Unfortunately one - balanced planes - is bullshit, because, as I stated previously, there are still OP and UP planes, only different.'

 

​Yes, some planes will perform better than others. Can you provide substantive numerical data from the game files and game statistics showing that the effect of over/under powered planes is not lesser in 2.0 than it was in 1.9? Saying that something is bullshit is not a statement of fact unless supported by facts, it's an opinion. You have countered one person's opinion with your own contrary opinion until you have evidence to state otherwise. You realize this is not the behaviour of an intelligent, rational individual, yes?

 

Item 6

 

'Even more unfortunately - 2nd point is valid only as long, as WoWP keeps enough players to fuel queue. As soon as number of players hits levels of 1.9, it will be void.'

 

Which second point? I may have missed it. Apologies if that is my lack of comprehension.

 

Item 7

 

'So you see, it's like a game, where I know what pawns will do few moves forward.'

 

​You realize that such statements are usually made by narcissists, schizoids and sociopaths? Or trolls with a chip on their shoulder whose actions are analogous to a cat endlessly dry heaving. It is possible that you embody a combination of all these features and characteristics, but it would be improper to make such accusations without proper evidence from a psychological evaluation.

 

​Item 8

 

'Note that I don't discuss with anybody, who simply says that likes 2.0.

I discuss with anybody, who says that 2.0 is a good game. Because it isn't, and there are strong proofs for that.'

 

You are currently engaging in a long, brow-beating intellectual façade of a debate with me, when I have neither stated whether 2.0 is good or not. This statement is thus patently false. It's almost as if you're a troll with a chip on their shoulder who make knee jerk responses without fully understanding the long term consequences or the general upshot for their case whilst holding publically announced delusions of intellectual superiority. 2.0 may/may not be objectively worse than 1.9; I'm partly here to understand if and why that is the case.

 

Item 9

 

'And I'm stating facts over and over.'

 

​Sometimes you state facts, sometimes you make patently false claims as exhibited above. You also appear to have jumped to the conclusion that I was directly addressing you. I wasn't then, but I am now. Are you having fun Jakub? Do you like lasagne? I love lasagne.

 

​Item 10

 

'WG has a big problem now.

They effectively stopped work on 1.9.

Then forcibly, against community voices (after all it's WG game) introduced 2.0, and 2.0 turns out to be at least as bad, as 1.9. Most probably will be worse.'

 

This was a statement in response to my statement that you quoted; 'WG don't need to roll anything back just because 'you don't like it'; you can't make a case for trivialities of taste.'

 

My statement still stands valid till proven otherwise as your response to the quoted material was non-sequitur: a response that does not address the prior issue and is at best a tangent. It is not appropriate to quote somebody and call them out then make non-sequiturs. Your statement, tangential though it may be, may or may not be correct. I'm not in a position to assert otherwise with certainty.

 

Item 11

 

'Somehow suddenly nobody notices http://forum.worldof...000#entry550000'

 

This is also a non-sequitur to what you quoted from me: 'You can however make substantive arguments for why a certain feature adds or detracts from the quality of the game and it's overall playability and engagement with the audience.'

 

One has little, nay nothing, to do with the other, and, once again, I think you may have made an incorrect assumption that I was directly targeting you. It may or may not be the case that people are ignoring that forum entry, though I'm not sure what your point is. Would you care to explain why you referenced that material in particular for the benefit of your intellectually inferior audience. Unlike you, we have made no claims about being able to see all the future moves of the pawns in this game so you need to make it clear for us pawns.

 

​Item 12

 

'More or less I can, and you can also.

 

There is a concept of corridor tests, and if you want to see such, watch:'

 

No, you can't. Corridor testing is very different to copy/pasting a YouTube video into a forum thread. Furthemore, corridor testing is not an exit survey, it is an uncontrolled measure using a small, usually random, sample. This may indicate to a statistician where they might need to investigate further, but it is a precedent for further investigation, not a proof of anything. I spent seven years in academia studying PPE and performing and contributing to econometric research; you're not going to pull that crap with me Jakub.

 

Item 13

 

'Is a bias stating that WoWP seems to be losing 100 players daily? Take a hall of fame and count for yourself. Anybody can.

 

If my work with numbers would have some errors, I'm pretty sure somebody would point them out. I'm not very liked here, so every opportunity is good.

Instead of that there are only cliches and slogans.'

 

It is not a bias stating that WoWP seems to be losing 100 players daily if the hall of fame acts as a reliable source of evidence in testimony to that fact. In that you are correct Jakub, have a dog treat, you earned it (oh how fun it is to act intellectually superior to others! That sure told you eh! I'm so great). Bias comes into play when they are projected into casual assumptions about what those numbers mean or assumptions of knowing why those 100 players are leaving each day. Unless proven otherwise, it might well be that those people would have got bored of the game regardless of whether it was 1.9 or 2.0 and just happened to try it out because of the publicity 2.0 received. It might be because they all died from being hit in the head by flying bananas. Don't make lofty claims about handling facts when you don't have them to work with, it's embarrassing. Sure, some of the others here may not be intellectual titans, but that doesn't preclude you from making false statements.

 

 

 

Fun talking to you Jakub. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Edited by Franco_Scala, 14 January 2018 - 01:32 AM.


lokid_1 #778 Posted 14 January 2018 - 04:15 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Conquest Member
  • 1307 battles
  • 71
  • Member since:
    07-27-2013

"in 1.9 if you had a bad team and you lost all your team, it was possible to win by yourself with any plane any type ! even with a lonely attack aircarft. but now you can't!!! "

 

 

In 2.0 I have shot down 28, 32 and finally 36 planes in one battle.

The last one I have lost.

Where is that balance?

Where is the motivation to play?

 



Franco_Scala #779 Posted 14 January 2018 - 05:00 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Advanced Member
  • 1488 battles
  • 98
  • [12-R] 12-R
  • Member since:
    11-10-2015

View Postlokid_1, on 14 January 2018 - 04:15 AM, said:

"in 1.9 if you had a bad team and you lost all your team, it was possible to win by yourself with any plane any type ! even with a lonely attack aircarft. but now you can't!!! "

 

 

In 2.0 I have shot down 28, 32 and finally 36 planes in one battle.

The last one I have lost.

Where is that balance?

Where is the motivation to play?

 

 

Hey lokid_1 :)

 

I understand your frustrations. However, may I ask if such occurrences are more or less frequent than instances in which you shoot down that many aircraft and win? All the best to you.



lokid_1 #780 Posted 14 January 2018 - 05:58 AM

    Master Sergeant

  • Conquest Member
  • 1307 battles
  • 71
  • Member since:
    07-27-2013

View PostFranco_Scala, on 14 January 2018 - 06:00 AM, said:

 

Hey lokid_1 :)

 

I understand your frustrations. However, may I ask if such occurrences are more or less frequent than instances in which you shoot down that many aircraft and win? All the best to you.

 

You missed the point bro. Pierre Closterman was top French ACE during WWII with 33 victories during whole war.

 

36 kills in one battle? And you lose the game because countless numbers of red planes pops up all around you and you can not move to another sector to capture it, as YOU HAVE TO CAPTURE IT TO WIN THE GAME!

 

Where is the FOCUS, where is the TACTICS?

 

This is SPACE INVADERS type of game now.






6 user(s) are reading this topic

2 members, 4 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Doktor_Plama, BravelyRanAway